A Twisting Road Leads To U.s. Highway Bill

April 20, 1998|By DAVID LIGHTMAN; Washington Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON — When Congress returns from a three-weekrecess today, state lawmakers will be ready to fight for their shares of the 1998 highway bill that will spend billions on roads, bridges, bike paths and other projects.

The story of how the state positioned itself to grab road money contains several chapters. In one, Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th District, is punished with less money for his Fairfield County district because he spoke out. In another, Trinity College spends $60,000 on a high-powered Washington lobbyist last year to push its cause. And in the final chapter, Gov. John G. Rowland presses his friends for a paragraph in the 534-page bill that should mean at least $60 million to Connecticut.

By the time the bill finally passes, probably sometime early this summer, Connecticut should reap between $380 million and $420 million annually for its projects.

This process began nearly a year ago. Staffers for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which would write a version of the bill, last summer put out the word that each one of the Republicans, who have the majority, could get $20 million worth of projects, and each Democrat could get $12 million if they would support the bill. Those who opposed the bill, regardless of party, were likely to be stuck with $4 million.

To get its money, Connecticut had to move on several fronts.

The state's first problem was simply to be remembered. It had no one on the committee, which was traditionally a backwater where no one wanted to stay, since a highway bill only came up once every five years or so.

Connecticut's absence would be obvious quickly. When the House offered its draft bill, states averaged huge increases from previous levels -- except for Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. They had had extra money in years past, the committee said, to finish parts of the interstate highway system. Connecticut would get roughly the same it got this year.

The state's delegation met. Rowland's Washington office and state transportation officials began making calls and holding meetings.

When the bill was finished, there on Page 191 was a special paragraph headed ``Connecticut,'' assuring the state it could use this year any money not spent in previous years on interstate highway construction -- at least $60 million.

Shays would have none of this. An avid proponent of balanced budgets, he was adamant that the bill was little more than a budget- buster. He said the idea of the bill ``depressed'' him and let Chairman Bud Shuster, R-Pa., know it. ``It was a blatant attempt to buy votes,'' Shays said.

That would hurt his southwestern Connecticut district when it came time for the committee to divvy out funds for individual projects.

``We decided mostly on merit,'' said committee spokesman Scott Brenner, ``but we also decided on the basis of who has voted for transportation in the past.''

The money available for projects grew over the year it took to finish the bill. Friendly delegation members could now enjoy at least $25 million worth of projects for their districts; Shays got $10 million. Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, R-6th District, whom some believed got more money because Shays got less, wound up with $40 million.

Everyone looked for a way to make sure their projects were mentioned in the final bill. One of the best avenues was to secure comments from the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The department wound up sending Congress letters of support or comments on 20 projects.

Among those left off its list was the money Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly, D-1st District, wanted for the Hartford Riverwalk South and Trinity College area road improvements. Also absent was the bid of Rep. Sam Gejdenson, D-2nd District, to get money for bike connections in downtown New London or a boardwalk in East Lyme.

No problem.

Gejdenson had strong backing from the towns, and Trinity was going its own way. The result was they pretty much got what they wanted.

Trinity got input from city and community officials, and retained Cassidy & Associates -- a Washington lobbying firm with 148 clients, including Boeing, the Chicago Board of Trade, Major League Baseball and Exxon -- to help push its cause.

A few weeks before the House finished its bill last month, the state delegation went into higher gear.